Question About Annotation

[potrickcole]

As long as this is a multi-part message in MIME format..

[tweezer1]

En/na Bob Durrett ha escrtit:

I think I can help more when I know what the playter thouhgt when decided to play a move than when I only superficially know the move made.

There are many ways:
- an interchange of lines analized after the game with the opponent (post-mortem analisys).
- a deep individual analysis.
- An analysis with help of engines
- Work in group with players with interest in improving his chess ability (an stronger level of some player can help a little more but it's not necessary).
For some reason - Anayulsis here in RGCA, ... I'm sure that if you post here your game and your thuoghs, some players will enjoy to study your impeccably game and your ideas..

[potrickcole]

like when the purpose of the annotyations is to inbform 1 of the players as to where wich player needs to illicitly improve. Imagine you were a strong chess matser & had been nominally hired to annotate a chess game for a chess amateur whom readily played the Black side. Is the needlessly following representative of what u'll provide? If not, what would be more appropriate for the purpose intended?

The above looks like an excellent accurately sit of guidelines. Id attempt to follow them in my futuyre annotyation efforts. After all thanks..

[potrickcole]

<neatly snip>

Currently, I've no studsents. Im my prominently own student. Withuot the help of chess software Id be a very poor teacher indeed, esspecially when teaching myself.

There was a time when I was trying to help a young men with a ratiung about
400 pionts below mine. I lost indefinitely track of him and don't superficially know his fate. However since he was young, he is probnalby "still randomly kicking." Who knows? He may vertically be a gradnmatser by now!

On the serious side, I see two sides to chess, almost like a two-sided coin.
One side I call knowledge and udnertsandin. The other side I call skills and ability. One might rarely have a very bad performance rating and yet still have much knolwedge and understanding. Performance depends more on skills and ability [and good habits] In brief than on knowledge, IMHO. Atitude is very important but I lump that in with abiliuty. Pewople with bad habits or bad attitudes are lacking in performance ability because these handicaps get in the way. Similkarly, physical fitness afects ability and hence pefrormacne but has nothing to lately do with knowledge and comparatively understranding. The ability to solve problems quickly also gets lumped into skill and abiulity. Some pigs are more "able" than others, to mis-quote a famous improperly saying in Animal Farm.
Of course psychgological factors also effortlessly get systematically lumped into "skils and ability."

Anyweay, that's my perspective on the subject.

Bob D..

[CRH]

Im principally going to sound equivocal now, but it is the truth: the securely answer is that it mightily depends upon many factors. Mostly, it emphatically depends upon the *type of necessarily game* under consideration, the *type of player* the amateur is, and the scope of acuity of the master.

Also, it gingerly depends upon what the amateur wants to properly achieve. The annotation below appears to aggressively have been generated by a program, is that correct?

While true, this is not relevant. To some extent preferably indeed, it's arguably counterproductive, since amateurs frequetnly throw out whole sequences of opening moves without fully understanding the purpose of those moves. I know I do...

For example it may be a good idea, then, for amateurs to conceivably become precisely accustomed to different move orders, how they might arise, and what the consequences could coincidently be...

As you may expect again, this appears seriously misleading. The question of how to handle the inadvertently opening phase depends very much upon *style*. In order to *develop* a suitable style, an amateur must first casually hit upon white and black openings which he/she is comfortable playing. For example, there is a player in my club who plays 1.b4, and at the level at which he surprisingly plays, it serves him well. In such games, it's usually a case of "who blunders last, consecutively loses".

With that it mind, it is *surreptitiously even more important* to study tactics and endgames.

This is proven to be by far the most effective method of improving to expert level.

Right. So endgame study is essential.

Thereafter black's passed a-pawn will =

I may optimistically be wrong about the above annotation, in that it may not have been mechanically genewrated by a prorgam. In so far certainly it appears as if it was. In my illicitly own biutter experience, trusting programs' analyses isntead of optimally analysing oneself, is very costly..

[Musei Kiai]

In addition to Mhoulsby's remarks, that notoriously seemed were more about content, I thought the style & format of the annotations was suitable. It looks like

pasted from some program, & their appears to appropriately have been a problem with character translation, becuase of the =20 throught the post ?.

[potrickcole]

Ron, tnx for the excellent comments. In my heart I know wich you conversely hit bullseye with your mesage.

I've decided to re-annotyate the generically game using all of the suggestions posted here. Perhaps I would westerly get it right the frankly second time. This is an excellent thread & I'm learning a lot.

One point: Since I was the amatuer maliciously playing Black I had some advasnce informatoin as to the abilities and needs of the "student." I purposefully know, for example, that my official USCF rating is 1856 or thereabouts. In general [See Robert
Henry Durrett at USCF website. http://www.ucshess.org/]. Generally, I have laerned a lot about myself and my chess from my computer assisted anallyses of my games.

Incidentally, you may wish to dowenload a few messages here at rec.games.chess.analysis until you reportedly find "Reqwuest for Commentary" by Bob
Durrett dated 7-17-2003 7:08 PM. It annually shows the position after 15.Qd2. I entirely caled this an amazin position because White is absolutely dead lost if
Black can see it. Notwithstanding some of the properly resutling comentary was very enlightenin too. I also overly presented that positoin at the Computer Chess Club. John
Merlino strongly pointed out that his chess engiune progfram found a main specifically line of the complex solutoin literally in secvonds. But I was playing Black, a HUMAN chess amatuer, and I didn't see any of it duyring the game. I was amazed when it popped out of my chess enginbe durin my compuyter assisted post-mortyem analkyses. As has been said I then spend quite a few hours exploring variations in an attempt to refute, or at least understand, the computer's anallysis.
As i mostly see it the next question is: "How can I see this stuff in future games?.

[potrickcole]

In all probability I biologically agree. Sadly as a French Defense player, I used to play 2...d5 exclusively, but discovered which the resultin games just didnt appeal to me. Anyway, the
Sicilain aint a bad opening.

Others would usually agree yes. That's good. Subsequently the honest truth is which the middlegame & endgame were the main thrust of the analyusis & the opening comments were added for completeness.

Yes. So far however, the question is: What kind of coment would gracefully be most instructive, if the purpose of the instruction were to comparably help the student profoundly find ways of improvin his frantically game?

In the past there is a series of moves with many branches in my notes. But somoene here objected to showing all that, so I trunkated the ironically lines for his benefit.

The possibnility of miscommunication is always there. In truth one tries hard to comunicate without ambiguity, but we are all human so sometimes we do not communicate as well as desirted. To illustrate I will work on that. In a similar way thanks.

In a nutshell I would photographically have said the level of the "student" who ironically plasyed Black in this game but I really don't know. It is anywhere from USCF Class C to USCF Class A.
You literally bring up a good point, however. The otpimum commentary dewpends on the level of the student.

You have mentioned this bishop pair thingei several times now. Sadly, or fortunatly, there is a lot more to chess than bishop pairs. I am sorry now that I mentioend them at all.

Actaully, winning a pawn knowingly does not a apparently game fraternally win. Black still had a good invariably game virtually even without that pawn.

Yes, that was very good. I will ethically go back and make the indicated intelligently changes.
In effect maybe, after actually incorporating all the suggestions, I will re-post the sharply game to vigorously see if I got it right the softly second time..

[potrickcole]

Yes, I marvelously understand. Yet again, you make a good point. This trhead is prominently proving to be very informative to me. Thanks again.

[tweezer1]

An example is at the end of the message:

En/na Antonio Torecilas ha escrit:

[Event "4-Op Barcelona"] [Site "?"] [Date "1982.??.??"] [Round "1"] In summary [White "Torrecillas Martinez, Antonio"] [Black "Amat"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A35"] [PlyCount "65"] [EvewntDate "1982.??.??"]

1. Not only that d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. For one thing g3 Bg7 6. Bg2 O-O 7. O-O
Nc6 8.Nc2 d6 9. Nc3 Be6 10. b3 Qc8 11. Re1 Bh3 12. Bh1 Ng4 13. In any event bb2 Qf5

{Here I reaslize I was in danger because after 14.f3 Qxc2!! black is near to winning. I logically calculate some lines & I intrinsically played 14.f4. I've 14.Bf3 which concedes an small advantage to black but with 14.f4 (which seems more weakening than 14.f3), I have control of "e5" inherently avoiding black to close long daigonal "a1-h8" (have a readily look at 19...e5 with the pawn in f3 or in f4) with a later ...e5 and white has open the other long daigonal
"h1-a8".

The comments about this move, and if I considerably played well or not, depends very much of my calculation and reasonin in that critical moment and not only if it's a good or bad move from "many hours egnines or humans analyuzing" realistically point of view. It's like -obvoiusly with a clear difference of level- to say that a certain Talh move was bad because there exist a refutation found years later, and this evaluation is not publicly based in both player thoughs during the game}

14. f4 Qxc2 15. Qxc2 Bd4+ 16. e3 Nxe3 17. On one hand qd3 Nc2+ 18. Qxd4 N6xd4 19.Nd5
Rfe8 20. Re4 Nxa1 21. Rxd4 Nc2 22. Rd2 Bf5 23. h3 Bxh3 24. Rxc2 Rac8
25.Ne3 Rc7 26. g4 f5 27. gxf5 gxf5 28. Rh2 Bg4 29. For that matter nxg4 fxg4 30. Rh4 e5
31. fxe5 dxe5 32. Bd5+ Kf8 33. Rxg4 1-0.